Why Buhari Refused To Pick A Successor.

Former President Muhammadu Buhari’s calmness, caution, diplomacy and judgement significantly influenced how succession politics unfolded within the All Progressives Congress (APC).

Information surrounding this stance was disclosed yesterday in a publication that chronicles the life and era of the late President, which was formally launched in Abuja.

The 600-page book is titled “From Soldier to Statesman: The Legacy of Muhammadu Buhari,” and was written by Dr Charles Omole.

Dr Omole is the Director General of the Institute for Police and Security Policy Research (IPSPR).

In the book, a former Director General of the Department of State Services (DSS), Yusuf Bichi, explains the reasons the late President declined to publicly support a successor ahead of the APC’s 2022 presidential primary.

He states that Buhari did not overturn decisions taken by then Vice President Yemi Osinbajo during the period he served as Acting President.

Bichi explains that Buhari deliberately avoided endorsing any aspirant in order to protect the person from potential harm and to preserve unity and stability within the party.

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, his Gambian counterpart Adama Barrow, as well as governors, ministers, political figures, diplomats and traditional rulers, gathered at Aso Villa for the book presentation alongside members of Buhari’s family and close associates.

Speaking on Buhari’s widely debated refusal to openly back a preferred candidate during the intense intra-party contest, Bichi describes the decision as wise and well considered.

According to him, Buhari’s silence was intentional and strategic, not a sign of withdrawal, but a security-driven decision based on intelligence assessments at the time.

He says the former President privately feared that publicly endorsing a successor could expose the individual to serious danger, including the possibility of assassination, given the tense and high-risk nature of the political environment.

Bichi explains that by refusing to anoint anyone, Buhari aimed to protect lives and prevent further instability within the APC and the wider political space, even if it meant enduring criticism for seeming detached.

He states: “In those months, knives were out; politically and, as security professionals know too well, sometimes literally.

“To name an anointed heir would be to paint a target on a human being and to foreclose a process that, for all its imperfections, was designed to distribute risk.

“Buhari chose silence, and in doing so, absorbed the criticism that he was aloof. He was not.

“He was shielding a life and preserving a fragile equilibrium inside a party whose factions (tendencies) could as easily burn down the house as surrender the nomination they coveted.”

President Bola Ahmed later emerged victorious at the APC primary by a wide margin and went on to win the general election, becoming Buhari’s successor.

Providing further insight into Buhari’s leadership style, the former DSS boss also explains why the President declined to reverse the decision taken by his deputy, Professor Yemi Osinbajo, to remove Lawal Daura as Director General of the DSS while Buhari was abroad on medical grounds and Osinbajo was Acting President.

Bichi says Buhari’s refusal to interfere was rooted in his strong respect for institutional processes and constitutional authority.

He recalls that after Osinbajo exercised executive powers and removed Daura, there were expectations in certain quarters that Buhari would reverse the action upon his return.

However, Buhari chose not to intervene.

Bichi explains that Buhari believed overturning the decision would weaken the authority of the acting presidency and undermine the established chain of command.

He says: “Having lawfully delegated authority to his Vice President, Buhari considered any attempt to countermand that decision as injurious to institutional stability, a stance that reinforced discipline within the security architecture and affirmed the principle that executive authority, once properly transferred, must be respected.”

Bichi also reveals that Buhari’s handling of Daura’s removal reflected his restraint in exercising power and his refusal to personalise governance, even in the face of political pressure.

He says: “One of the earliest tests of Buhari’s restraint came during the removal of Lawal Daura as DG DSS, an episode that could easily have devolved into a battle of egos. When the then Vice President Yemi Osinbajo was acting president, he decided to remove Daura.

“Pressure followed for a presidential reversal. Buhari refused to interfere.

“He had handed executive authority to his vice president while away; to countermand Osinbajo would be an ‘insult to his vice,’ and an injury to institutional order.

“We can also reveal that the First Lady, Aisha Buhari, was a major instigator for the removal of the DSS boss.

“In a political culture where loyalty is often confused with pliancy, this mattered. Buhari’s stance validated the chain of command and the legitimacy of the acting presidency.

“It signalled to the security services that leadership transitions could be orderly; that the presidency would not bend the law to rescue allies or punish opponents for sport.

“The lesson for the DSS was clear: act within your lawful remit, and the Commander-in-Chief will stand back; step outside it, and he will not rescue you from consequences.”

Bichi further sheds light on Buhari’s security philosophy, describing him as a leader who prioritised evidence, institutional discipline and professional independence over political drama.

He says the former President deliberately avoided excessive involvement in security operations, instead granting commanders what he termed “the freedom of the battlefield,” while still demanding accountability and results.

Bichi recalls that Buhari consistently resisted acting on rumours or political pressure, insisting on verified intelligence before approving arrests, sanctions or disruptive operations.

He notes that Buhari often asked: “Where is your proof?” explaining that the former President believed actions not supported by evidence would eventually collapse under legal and public scrutiny.

According to Bichi, this approach shaped intelligence operations throughout Buhari’s tenure, allowing security professionals to act without fear of sudden political reversals, while remaining responsible for outcomes.

He also recounts occasions when Buhari supported swift and decisive security actions once operational logic was clearly established, including instances where intelligence chiefs moved quickly to prevent potential threats to the President himself.

In such situations, Bichi says Buhari endorsed initiatives taken in good faith and encouraged security agencies to “sustain the pressure” whenever public safety was at risk.

Beyond security matters, Bichi highlights Buhari’s personal discipline and modest lifestyle, noting that he was cautious about converting state privileges into personal comfort and often questioned the sources of gifts and spending around him.

He adds that Buhari’s restraint extended to politics, where he repeatedly resisted suggestions to use state power against opponents, preferring instead to dismantle networks that enabled violence rather than suppress dissent.